|
Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact
chouse@law.harvard.edu
or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-239-1111 (outside the U.S.) SCENARIO:
The state is required by federal law to site a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility within a year. The State Regulatory Agency responsible for siting the facility must develop a set of criteria. This agency is empowered to decide the criteria on its own, but would prefer to have these negotiated by parties specifically concerned about this issue of low-level radioactive waste. Seven stakeholder groups have an interest in the negotiation. If at least five of the seven agree to a set of ten siting criteria, these criteria will be adopted by the State Agency. In the absence of an agreement, the State will promulgate its own criteria. The seven parties include: a State Management Authority responsible for operating the facility; the Indian Tribal Council; a moderate environmental coalition; a more radical coalition of environmental and anti-nuclear activists; the Municipal and County Governments' Association; the Radioactive Waste Generators' Association; and the Governor's Blue-Ribbon Panel of Science and Economic Advisors.
MAJOR LESSONS:
Benefits of simultaneous iteration: When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The players can explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (7-way) agreement.
Pre-negotiation analysis: The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. This game using stylized ‘points’ to indicate how desirable is a particular options.
Coalitions: This simulation provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies. Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions, especially blocking coalitions.
Disclosure issues: Parties that reveal their true interests may or may not do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's interests are illustrated in this negotiation.
Pareto-curve: Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements can be examined as illustrated by the scores.
Internal vs. External dynamics: When 14 players play the game (2 per role), they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of simultaneous "internal" and "external" negotiations.
Importance of neutrals: The need for a neutral "process manager" of some sort is illustrated as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
Impact of Caucusing The advantages and disadvantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucusing; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.
Science-intensive issues: The special qualities of environmental disputes are evident particularly the importance of scientific and ideological considerations.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
This exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.
MECHANICS:
The exercise is best played with 7 people (1 per role), although 14 people (2 per role) works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions.
Estimated Time Requirements:
Exercise instructions require at least 30 minutes to read. The negotiation requires at least 1-1/2 hours; more time is preferable. At least 30 minutes should be set aside for debrief.
TEACHING MATERIALS:
For all parties:
General Information
Role specific:
Confidential Instructions for the
Governor's Blue Ribbon Committee
Environmental Coalition
Public Management Authority
Association of Radwaste Generators
Green Wave
State Association of Municipal and County Governments Federated Indian Tribal Council
Teacher's package:
All of the above
Detailed Teaching Notes
KEYWORDS/THEMES:
Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Currently perceived choice analysis; Delay tactics; Environmental disputes; Facility siting; Group process; Information exchange; Issue control; Joint gains; Linkage; Low level radioactive waste; Managing uncertainty; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Multi-party negotiation; Native American negotiation; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Preparation; Pressure tactics; Regulated policy negotiation; Reservation price; Science-intensive policy disputes; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis
SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:
Managing Groundwater beneath the Pablo-Burford Border
Puerto Maurico’s Development Conflict
Residential Development in Tienhuizen
|
